How Would You Handle “The Case of the Commission Controversy”?

DIAMOND & GRACE WAS a high-end jewelry boutique with a staff that was expertly trained to cater to a clientele that valued personalization and one-of-a-kind pieces. While the team was no stranger to complex requests, few shopping journeys rivaled Jason’s. A detail-oriented engineer on a quest to find the perfect engagement ring, Jason brought a level of scrutiny that put their service to the test, but longtime salesperson Amelia was up for the challenge.

Jason wasn’t a typical walk-in customer. Over the course of several weeks, he visited Diamond & Grace five separate times. Each time, he came prepared with detailed questions. Jason approached his ring search like a technical project, scouring the internet daily and comparing offerings from other online retailers. He frequently emailed or texted Amelia a new listing, convinced he’d found a better value than the day before.

He wanted specs and side-by-side analysis. Amelia met his intensity with patience. She sourced competitive alternatives, explained the subtle differences between similar stones, and guided him through the process.

At last, after what felt like a marathon of data crunching and second-guessing, Jason made his decision. He returned to the store one final time to purchase a $10,000 engagement ring. He settled on a brilliant round-cut diamond that struck the perfect balance between quality and value. Amelia was proud to have helped him and believed she had gained a loyal customer in the process.

But just two days later, Jason was back. Amelia wasn’t scheduled that day, so Christopher, another experienced associate, greeted him. Jason had found yet another diamond online, one he insisted was an even better value, and he wanted to exchange his previous purchase.

Christopher, eager to preserve the sale and provide excellent service in Amelia’s absence, stepped in to assist. The new diamond wasn’t available in-store, but he arranged to have it overnighted and assured Jason the exchange would be seamless.

Jason returned when the new diamond arrived. Amelia was still off, but Christopher completed a full return on the original diamond under Amelia and sold Jason the new one. He closed out the transaction by taking full credit for the new sale.

The following week, Amelia noticed something odd while running her sales report. The $10,000 sale was gone. A full return had been processed, with no notification. Confused, Amelia brought it up with her manager, Kathleen.

Kathleen was able to determine that Christopher had processed the return under her name yet took full credit for the new sale. Christopher explained that since the original diamond was returned and a different one had to be specially ordered, he had effectively started from scratch. From his perspective, he had completed a new sale, coordinating with the vendor and closing the deal.

Amelia was frustrated. She had built the relationship, educated Jason and earned his trust over multiple visits and countless emails. Without that foundation, there wouldn’t have been a sale to salvage. Amelia believed she should have been informed, given the opportunity to collaborate, and should have gotten credit for half of the new transaction.

Kathleen listened as both associates laid out their perspectives. Amelia pointed to her extensive time investment, while Christopher pointed out his handling of the ring exchange and ensuring Jason didn’t walk away altogether.

Kathleen understood the importance of maintaining harmony between associates because any tension could compromise the team’s ability to deliver the service Diamond & Grace was known for. She needed to consider how sales credit should be assigned in situations where the customer journey spanned multiple visits, shifting needs, and more than one associate. Was it more appropriate to reward the person who finalized the transaction, or to recognize the cumulative effort that brought the sale to the finish line?

Bill M.
Granger, IN

This situation should have been an opportunity to demonstrate collaboration, not competition. While Christopher helped complete the sale, it’s clear that Amelia’s extensive relationship-building and product education laid the foundation. In cases like this, recognizing the shared effort is not just fair, it promotes a healthy team culture. This is a clear training opportunity, not just about procedures but about professional respect. Ultimately, it comes down to decency and acknowledging the time and care a teammate invested.

Tony H.
Middleton, WI

I believe the fair way of handling this situation is to split the commission equally. Each sales rep contributed to the overall customer experience and satisfaction and therefore is entitled to half the commission.

Kristy K.
Alliston, ON

The credit for the sale should have still gone to the initial salesperson because of the relationship they built with the client. Just because the client came in and changed a portion of the design, which altered the details of the sale, does not mean the secondary salesperson that handled those details should get any credit. They did nothing other than order in a part of the total design on behalf of the salesperson that was not there to do so. The client is the one that did the legwork of finding the better stone and was not there to cancel the custom work, just alter the design/final outcome with a better stone. The secondary salesperson only facilitated the acquisition of it since the original salesperson was not there to do it for their client.

Jennifer F.
Colorado Springs, CO

There is no win for the business in this scenario because neither salesperson will trust the other again. It will become a game of taking every opportunity to steal commissions to make up for what was lost. This is EXACTLY why commission-based sales should become extinct in the jewelry industry. In the example given, splitting the secondary sale makes the most sense because it took the efforts of both salespeople to make it happen. HOWEVER, if companies would switch to a profit-sharing system where employees make a living wage and profits get paid out at year-end by the success of the business, it wouldn’t have been an issue in the first place. Companies that continue to be “minimum wage + commission” will always have animosity among the team (except the salesperson at the top who bullies everyone else because every customer who have ever breathed in their vicinity is their client). Team-selling that sets store goals and incentives are the way of the future and necessary to break the cycle of disgruntled employees.

Marcus M.
Midland, TX

For one, this is why I don’t pay commission. What an annoying situation. Honestly, I would give the majority if not all of the commission to Amelia. She’s the one that put in the legwork and had the patience to deal with such a headache of a customer. On top of that, Christopher should have been honest with the customer and with Amelia about the process and given her the chance to complete the exchange. This is unprofessional on Christopher’s side, and I wouldn’t tolerate it. Maybe he’s owed something for not letting the customer walk that day, but he didn’t handle the situation correctly and needs to understand that. Lessons should be learned here, and Kathleen has the opportunity to teach that. I hope she does.

Kirsten H.
Rochester, MN

I believe it’s a team effort. Our store does not run off of commission. Something I think every store should do. We are proud to offer excellent customer service with no pressure! This resolves so many issues for our store because ultimately our sales staff prioritizes our customers over fighting over sales. I think with proper management, you can still reach the store’s sales goals and have happy customers and staff.

Chuck K.
West Des Moines, IA

To begin with, the customer belongs to the store not the salesperson. Accordingly, the store should have a clear policy regarding multiple salespersons working with a client. If the customer returns, just looks at the already selected merchandise but with another salesperson, and then makes the purchase, no split. That’s just one salesperson helping out their colleague who did all the initial work. Now, if the customer looks at additional merchandise or works on financing, etc., there should be a 50/50 split. No question about who did more work than the other. That leads to arguments and bad feelings. The policy needs to be the same for everyone so there’s no question or room for argument. Otherwise, it’s splitting hairs all the time and building dissention among the troops.

Garrick B.
Santa Fe, NM

For 30-plus years, I have dealt with this issue successfully as follows: We have a bonus system based on the total sales for the day. At tier one, ALL sales associates get an extra half hour’s wages; at tier two, all get an extra hour’s wages; at tier three, an extra hour and half, etc. That way, everyone helps steer the right customer to the right sales associate — and sometimes the junior staff member who might be working what looks like a smaller sale turns it into a large one, and so on. This way, the most junior sales associate may steer a well-known or “well-heeled” customer toward a senior associate and now everyone is helping everyone. I can’t believe more shops don’t use a system like this. It really works and my business has profited from it.

Ira K.
Tallahassee, FL

If ever there was a case for a fifty-fifty split, this is it. If the associates don’t like that, then just make it a house sale with no commission. That will teach them to cooperate in the future.

Jack L.
Lake Forest, CA

This is a great question, although, a minute into the read, I knew what my reply would be: It has to be a split. Besides the obvious fairness of rewarding both parties (who exerted an equal amount of effort), giving the entire commission to Christopher would discourage Amelia and colleagues in her situation from investing similar effort going forward. In addition, after decades of dealing with commissioned salespeople, I would suggest that a morale issue would evolve in the store going forward. Ameila and Christopher should be regarded as partners here, not competitors; the same reason we refer to “teams,” not staffs or crews.

Jose M.
Dacula, GA

This scenario solution should be part of posted procedures. Sales can be solo, split in two ways and three-way sales are all possible. An associate does not receive a portion of the sale if they greet a customer and then hand it off to a salesperson without displaying any merchandise. If a salesperson calls in another salesperson while showcasing merchandise, the sale is split. If a third salesperson is brought in by the second associate, you have an equal three-way split. Now, if there is disagreement on who gets the split, it is up to the associates to resolve with management approval at the end. If no agreement is reached, the sale goes to the office and no associate will get credit on any portion of the sale. The sale in the aforementioned scenario ought to be divided. Amelia did the majority of the work, and Christopher needs a talk on procedures and being a team player. Kudos for saving the sale, but he would not have any sale to save without Amelia’s work.

Jeff M.
Knoxville, TN

This is a no-brainer; the sale should be split. Amelia built rapport and trust with the customer, proved the store’s value in working with him, and closed the original sale. Christopher did well to turn a return into a new sale, but it is obvious based on Jason’s shopping pattern that Amelia had done a lot of the heavy lifting to tee up the exchange. A split is fair and reflective of reality. Beyond that, giving total credit for the sale to Christopher would set a precedent at odds with team selling and covering for one another, as well as diminish trust among the sales staff. It would not be a leap to think a salesperson with ambiguous scruples could learn to see sniping exchanges from their teammates as their easiest sales if they get full credit!

Dennis P.
Johnstown, PA

As complex as this sounds, the solution is easy. There should an understanding, a rule if you will, that when any return is made, the originating salesperson must be notified and a collaboration for transparency should occur as necessary. In this situation, because the second associate intervened and “saved” the sale, it should be split. A “turnover” always should go 50/50. In the end, it all balances out if the sales team has been taught that sales is a “team” effort. We have dealt with many of these types of nightmare customers, and if nothing else, a collaborative T.O. can be a breath of fresh air.